#metabrainz

rest in peace, Jade D:

Apart from that I've been working up on cleaning up the hierarchy of our first Redux app, which is the new entity editor

Hopefully that'll be merged within the next couple of weeks, and we can make some related GCI tasks

fin. Leftmost, I choose you!

I am the chosen one!

Now jump into the volcano!

I've been working on reviewing PRs as they come through and trying to get an organized picture of next steps for the BB site code. I'm hoping to create some surface area for changes, both for devs and GCI participants, and next week I'll be on holiday, so I intend to spend a lot of that time coding.

Fin. Leo_Verto?

Okay!

I continued work on the user survey (now OTHER-266) which should hopefully be done in time for the new year.

I also worked with samj1912 to get their JIRA plugin for BrainzBot up and running, which unfortunately wasn't done in time for the meeting but I'll restart the bot and enable the plugin after it. :D

(Also I'm pretty hyped about that voucher)

Fin. yvanz!

Hi!

Thanks, I mentored dpmittal's GCI coding tasks on MusicBrainz server with kindly reviews by bitmap, chirlu and Freso.

I am still digging into Mediawiki and transclusion for doc i18n (MBS-1406).

That's all folks!

yvanz, did you ever get someone to send you the doc from last year's GCI?

No, unfortunately.

I fear that it vanished.

Yeah. :(

Oh well.

No sign of "my" GCI student, so I guess I'll have to unassign them.

!next

reosarevok, edit history.

+1

About GCI student for IRC meeting task, sahil1 is in ISTI, I am pretty reassured that he did not wake up/stay up until 2:30 AM. ;)

yvanz, and that is fine.

I don't see any particularly good reason for that. kuno mentioned that since notes have always been "private", people might expect that privacy and post stuff they wouldn't want others (e.g. Google) to see. Pirate links or whatnot.

So I could see a reason to keep notes behind log-in if we want, but not the edit history itself

+1

+1

Hmm, but editors are already usually strangers and they're happy sharing currently

LordSputnik, Freso|laptop, ruaok: Would you indicate what exactly you are +1ing?

(my preference would be to show both, but I'm not opposed to show just edits and say "log in to see edit notes" if desired)

And there's nothing to stop an editor pasting comments somewhere public

"keep notes behind log-in if we want, but not the edit history itself" -- +1

chirlu: the whole proposal of making edit history public

It would also be "easy" to get the edit dump from MB and make all the edit notes fully public.

aren't edit notes also sort of on the line where the difference between CC0 and CreativeCommons is drawn?

I think that if edits are controversial, the notes would help explain why something was done, so it's useful to have public if the edit itself is public

more visibility of edits without needing to be logged in.

I agree with kuno that edit notes can’t simply be made public.

Leo_Verto: Right.

Freso|laptop: if you can do something, doesn't mean you should

I always thought that separation made sense, the CC0 data being available without login

chirlu: but if they're in the dumps they're already public

Gentlecat, what I'm arguing is that the data isn't private to begin with.

I'd be fine with a blog post stating that we plan to make them public. then make them public in 90 days or so.

True, but not available practically.

And that we're already publicly publishing it.

ruaok: that doesn't make any difference, there's no "remove edit note" option

ruaok: And what if someone objects to their edit notes becoming public?

Hmm, we currently exclude banned users from viewing them this way, don't we?

they ARE PUBLIC.

They aren’t.

Leo_Verto, but they can create another user and log in and see them.

if I can download them, they are public.

They aren't private either.

not easily accessible, but public.

(fuck, Berlin now)

chirlu: If google wanted to index edit notes, they could

That might be a new vector for spammers. (Not a stopper though.)

LordSputnik: no they can't.

/edit is disallowed in robots.txt

Hm, I don't have a strong opinion on this topic other than that making editing notes public could make MB's concept of volunteers entering data more clear to outsiders

ruaok: they can download the data dump and do it that way, is what I meant

yes, true.

Would we hide editors from public editing history?

Perhaps we could allow requests for anonymization of edit notes?

We could also just "keep notes behind log-in if we want, but not the edit history itself"

LordSputnik, that sounds like a whole lot of work though :/

Yeah, showing the edit itself shouldn’t be an issue.

I'd be fine with freso's suggestion as well.

I think we can start with showing the edits

It wasn't really my suggestion, IIRC, but sure. :p

Since some people don't want to show the notes but nobody seems to object to the edits themselves

I would suggest that freso take a vote for totally open. if that fails, take a vote of freso style partially open.

I agree, that'd give users time to come up with good arguments not to make edit notes themselves publicly available

Totally open? YAY/NAY

Nay.

YAY

I agree with the general idea, it would be very valuable to have editing history more accessible, including edit notes which usually mention *references*. :)

Yay

(not sure if kuno is here, but that's a nay)

YAY

(BookBrainz has open edit history and notes already, not that there's a lot of it :P)

3:3?

nay

I'd prefer making edits-only public first and let the rest of the community discuss edit notes

I think CatQuest would also be nay.

bitmap: then vote nay, yay

NAY

Open edits, closed notes: YES/NO

Maybe we could do a blog post and get some more consensus

YES

if previous fails, YAY.

YES (at least)

YES (with the aim to make note public)

Yes.

ruaok, I was deliberately using different terms for this vote to not confuse votes for the other... :)

Yay else Yes

stick to CHEEZBURGER AND BLUP, please. :)

Yes

Well, seems like there's not consensus about "totally open", and it is in fact leaning towards "nay". "Open edits, closed notes" is almost unanimously accepted though.

So I think that resolves this point.

YES

!next

Gentlecat, DRs.

Another idea: we could make edit notes public but just hide authors globally for users who aren't logged in.

some decisions need to be made on these tickets

That should only be a couple of lines of code extra

LordSputnik: Doesn’t work because people mention editors’ names in edit notes.

if someone is interested, please comment

Gentlecat: Can you summarize what the tickets are about?

https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/CB-49 https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/CB-65 https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/CB-110 https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/CB-169

well, there's not much time

Pick one and we'll see if we have time for another.

the first one is about account removal (https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/CB-49)

"User deletes account on CB, retains account on MB" is this still possible?

Or are they now joined Discourse-style?

there are some open questions about how to do it properly

on CB side specifically

and then there's an issue of propagating account removals from MB

I'd like to focus on the former

since it doesn't look like we can do anything about MB accounts right now, apart from manually deleting them

https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/CB-65 is about showing more data on release group pages

This seems out of scope for CB-49 though.

just need to decide if it's going to be useful or not

As I read CB-49, it's about dealing with reviews post-removal, not the specifics of the removal.

I think reviews should be retained unless removal is explicitly requested

CB-65 doesn't seem very useful

Gentlecat: I don't see the interest to display releases on CB-65, works might be more intesresting.

if you can't review specific releases anyway

https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/CB-110 is about confusion with how votes work

Okay then. I don't really see any discussion/questions about the DR-49, so that one won't be resolved tonight.

they are currently attached to different revisions of a review

I think CB-65 isn't very useful other than showing one tracklist which we already do

So any votes are lost if I fix a typo?